About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 11
MSNBCW 10
CSPAN2 3
CSPAN 2
KGO (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 41
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morell told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming in on my phone. there were several valid intelligence and investigatory reasons
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were training camps for islamic extremists, particularly near benghazi. and that
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
. for example, she also said al qaeda was decimated. that is pat. ly false. i asked why that statement should be made to the american people and she really had no good answer for it. there was lots of classified information that she gets briefed on that indicated this was not a hateful video that sparked a spontaneous democrat congratulation. i still don't understand why anyone who believe when you come with mortars and rocket propelled grenades how that could possibly be viewed as a spontaneous demonstration. there are a lot of layers to this. >>neil: we tried for ambassador rice and we got a statement from her office, saying we wish that we had perfect information days after the attack. the intelligence often, the assessment has evolved. >>guest: that is another big question, why would it have evolved? there were people who were survivors who were flown to germany who were interviewed by the f.b.i. they told, they said, absolutely, there was no demonstration. yet for a couple of weeks the intelligence community seemed to be wrestling with intelligence and other classified information they h
stability and prevent al-qaeda's return after nato leaves. he is preparing for confirmation for the next hearing when he was swept in the petraeus e-mail scandal. the inspector general is investigating. >> jennifer griffin, thank you. still ahead, director of national intelligence changes his story. first, we go to point pleasant beach, new jersey, four weeks after hurricane sandy. victor! victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. a hybrid? most are just no fun to drive. she operates the head. now, here's one that will make you feel alive. meet the five-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max says ha. c-max says wheeee. which is what you get, don't you see? cause c-max has lots more horsepower than prius v, a hybrid that c-max also bests in mpg. say hi t
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our question but admitted her talking points were, quo, incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstr
interviews saying that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda. what senator ayotte and other senators have said is that was misleading because she knew in a classified way that al qaeda might have been behind it. so that is what one -- two of the reasons why at least senator ayotte said that she is troubled. and she said that she is still not ready to say that she will vote for her. not only that, but she's still -- she still has a threat to block her nomination if susan rice is nominated. >> and is that the end of it, or are there future meetings? is there going to be more consultation, or is that that? >> reporter: no, that is not that. that is the beginning of this for sure. we understand that the ambassador is likely to be back later today for more meetings. ted barrett heard from the republican from tennessee that he has a meeting with susan rice tomorrow. again, just like today's meeting. that was at the request of susan rice. she is definitely making the rounds. she's trying to explain herself. but at least with these three republican senators this morning who were --
on those sunday talk shows. why she did not mention al qaeda, not just that -- because we understand now that she didn't mention it because she was told that that was classified and she was given unclassified talking points and that's what she read from. the bigger question they have, we're told, is why she went further and said that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda and whether or not she said that knowing the classified information, which suggested that al qaeda might have been behind or at least an affiliate of al qaeda might have been behind this attack in benghazi. >> it will be an interesting morning on the hill. >> this is ridiculous. first of all, she wasn't secretary of state. you have critics who don't want to mention secretary of state clinton, didn't want to mention petraeus when it came to the cia. and they want to zero in on somebody who frankly was sent out on television who was not even over the ambassador. >> are we seeing here, basically, the end game on this? will this resolve these issues? do we think that basically we're going to expect to see her nomin
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
without knowing exactly who they were, but we thought that is a signature of a known al-qaeda leader. then it morphed into unknown people and unknown possible militants there are guns down there. that's why we so often hit weddings because people in afghanistan and yemen bring guns to weddings and shoot them in celebration. then they say there is militant activity there they hit the wedding and many die. that is thoughtful, immoral and ridiculous. i'm not against all drone strikes. drone strikes can prevent full war instead. i'm not against that. but i'm against dumb, immoral counterproductive and lawless drone strikes. do you know not only do we do these signature strikes but we have executed u.s. citizens abroad with no trial whatsoever. that's not what this country is supposed to stand for. i'm not saying end the drone program. i'm saying at least at the very least put very stringent legal requirements so our executive branch is not acting outside of the law. by the way there is another word for that. it's called illegal. so they're not acting illegally in killing u.s. citizens an
it in themselves to soften. here is the thing the way i understand it. they pulled al-qaeda out of the talking points and pulled the protest out of the talking points and she still went with it. she still went with it and told the american people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for a
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. >> that is the defense of the obama administration today. in essence that this program is so targeted it saves civilian lives. what do you say to that in your case? >> well, i think it's very hard to assess that kind of claim without more information. information that the administration refuses to release. it's very easy for administration officials to make claims like this when there's no possibility that they're going to be held to account for the claims, no possibility that some court is going to order them to disclose information, no possibility that they'll be sksd foll -- asked follow-up questions. part of the reason we are in court asking judges to enforce the freedom of information act, asking judges to disclose more information is to allow the public to better assess the kinds of claims that the administration is now making, usually through unnamed officials in leaks to favored media. >> jodi, do you think this is the area where we've seen pe
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
al-qaeda -- the taliban seems enmeshed and woven into the fabric of society. what have we accomplished? >> the book traces this one outpost from 2006 until 2009 when overrun by the taliban. in 2007-2008, that's a part of the narrative when there actually is very tangible achievement and the u.s. and the afghan government is willing to win over the local populous and get them to start casting out the terrorists in the villages and hamlets and this one lieutenant, alex newsom who was in afghanistan early this year doing special operations missions, says that when he went back to this area, the people there all remembered him. they were still anti-taliban. they were still willing to fight. he was very encouraged. as i said, he's in the minority there. but it wasn't as if all of these individuals, all of a sudden became taliban. mainly they don't want anyone bothering them. >> eliot: that's the question. no doubt. our presence there can have that affirmative effect. was it possible -- is it possible to argue tha
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
yesterday against al qaeda terrorists. [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working. oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts. we create easy to use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! strategies, chains, positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. [ male announcer ] introducing a brand new medicare prescription drug plan. it's called the aarp medicarerx saver plus plan from unitedhealthcare. and it's for people who want the lowest part d premium in the united states... only $15 a month. and copays could be as low as a dollar. so call unitedhealthcare now to enroll or learn more. with this plan, you can save 40% or more on your copays by using a preferred network pharmacy, in a
took out al-qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we really believe? maybe santa can help us. nope. instead we got michael goodwin. you can find his columns in the "new york post" and fox news. who is telling the truth and who is lying? >> look, you ask who we should believe? i think no one. that's the whole point of putting people under oath. then supposedly get the truth or we get perjury. i believe susan rice had to know better before she made those comments. i just recently reread president obama's speech to the u.n. where there is no question he is saying the video did it. all of that was false. they all had reason to know it was false. clapper is just a clown. i mean, he does this all the time. and the idea that james clapper can take responsibility for making the changes, why isn't president obama furious at him? why doesn't president obama fire him today if the president really believed that clapper made a huge mistake? >> gretchen: that's a loaded question because as director of national intelligence to say one thing and then s
on this network. we know the cia two hours into the attack that it was an al qaeda terrorist attack. we know the white house had drone footage coming to the situation room. we know the department of state, we know all of these different entities were aware of it much earlier than what had been initially indicated by susan rice. then five days later. five days later she goes on five national shows with -- if not intentionally, then the biggest bunch of mishandled information we have seen in foreign policy in quite some time. whether she purposely did it or not, she gave misleading information to the american people. the question is did she do it on purpose. rick: this is why so many republicans think it doesn't pass the smell test. she was out there saying what she was saying. now she is blaming that on the information given to her about it intel communities. but we know from david petraeus' testimony that he knew within a couple hoirts was a terror attack. >> the same republican lawmakers were vigorously defending another then likely nominee for secretary of state with the last name rice whe
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
facing the united states? he didn't say al qaeda, he didn't say iran or north korea or climate change. he said the deficit and the state of american society. that is exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget and questions of infrastructure and immigration policy but above all education policy because this is the future and we are not talking about physical infrastructure but human infrastructure and joel is someone who has dedicated the most recent phase of his multi phase currier to this and when he is not discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn he is focused on improving a lot of young people in this country. so let me tell you how condi is dedicated to this issue. year-and-a-half i called her up and asked her to do something for me and with me. she said i'm too -- don't even go there. we have bet on many football games. before the end of this conversation you are going to agree to what is going to happen and she said no way. we at the council of foreign relations spend our time working on things like china, mexico, all the judicial foreign policy issues and we've move
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
-time, the state now is disconnected from reality. [inaudible] jump out at you. this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of in cory and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear -- inquiry into gaza, i think we pretty clear as related to a video that created a mod that turned into a riot was far a field. and at the end of the day we are going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama the days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, it's better to give no information at all. so my belief is not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was ba
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
. there is no question. >> there is a question. >> how the al qaeda references were eliminated. was it james clapper? was it the justice department? was it somebody else. that we don't know the answer to and maybe the confirmation hearings for susan rice will reveal that. however, i think what's striking about this "washington post" piece, and again, it is online by stephanie mccrummon anybody can read it, how obvious it is they are setting her to run for president in 2016. as soon as she leaves the state dipt which will be probably next, a little while, articles like this will be seen, part of a fund-raising pitch. hillary is your obvious choice, democrats to run for president. look at all the puffy praise. every bad thing that happened in the obama administration foreign policy not saying all bad but this article now wipes all those away. she is beloved. everybody loves her. she spent 30 years in public service which i don't quite understand how they got the math on that. nonetheless they're saying it that way. and i think it's reminder what we have to look forward to in the next four years. >> th
ago from the former c.i.a. director who said i thought it was al-qaeda within 24 hours. it was edited out. they said, oh, those, i touched it, essentially politics enters in. if she says i went by this paper, what kind secretary of state goes by this paper and doesn't use all her plethora of contacts to find out what the real story is? >> steve: exactly. keep in mind, in addition to the unclassified talking points she works also had access to the classified. so she knew it really was happening. bill o'reilly was talking to john mccain about this last night and here is a little of their conversation. >> is she a dishonest woman, senator? is she dishonest? did she go out there knowing what she said was false and say it anyway? that's the crux of this matter. >> i don't think it was a matter of dishonesty. it was a matter, again, of responsibility. there was plenty of information out there, which she has access to, which contradicted what she said. if you're telling the american people, speaking for the white house, it was the white house that sent her out, off responsibility to make sur
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
that seemed to play down the role of al qaeda terrorists on the attack in benghazi, libya. that attack killed four americans, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. rice maintains that she made it very clear, the intelligence information she had at the time was preliminary. senators are threatening to block her nomination if president obama chooses her to be his next secretary of state. >>> president obama and vice president joe biden will meet with mexico's president-elect today. pena kneeate toe has a new message. in an editorial in "the washington post" he said the u.s./mexico relations need to go beyond drugs and security concerns. topping his list, deepening economic ties with the united states. >>> the remains of former palestinian leader yasser arafat were exhumed this morning from a mausoleum in the west bank. many palestinians believe that arafat was poisoned by israel when he died in 2004. now, an international team of scientists will analyze tissue samples to see if they contain any traces of a radioactive substance. the actual cause of arafat's death was never determined. >>> th
that they knew that those with ties to al qaeda work involved in the attacks in the embassy, and clearly the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that information was wrong, and they knew by the 22nd that it was wrong. they have not clear that up with the american people, and coming forward in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states also talking about the fact that it was a reaction to the video. what troubles me also is that obviously the changes made, the unclassified talking points were misleading, but just to be clear, when you have a position where your and ambassador to the united nations, you go well beyond classified talking points in your daily responsibilities, and that is troubling to me as well, i am a person that got -- does not know anything about this and i am going on every single show. is part of our responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to review much more than that. >> before anybody could make an intelligent d
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)